Home > Workgroups > Integrated Justice

Legal XML Integrated Justice Work Group Meeting 1

Workgroup Information

Workgroup Name: Integrated Justice

Workgroup Chairs: David Roberts (david.roberts@search.org), Hugh Collins (hmc@lajao.org)

Workgroup Mailing List: integratedjustice@legalxml.org

Workgroup Mailing List Archive: http://www.legalxml.org/Archives/integratedjustice.html

Workgroup Website: http://www.legalxml.org/IntegratedJustice/

Document Authors

Win Lyday (wlyday@4mail.org)

Document Editors

Larry Webster (larry.webster@search.org)

Short Statement of Status

Informational

Abstract

These are minutes of the first face-to-face meeting of the Legal XML Integrated Justice Work Group held in Dallas, Texas on June 29, 2000. Fifteen people attended the meeting.

Status of Document

This document is a draft and is subject to comment and change.

Table of Contents

1. Work Group Meeting Attendees

2. Work Group Meeting Minutes

	2.1. Welcome and Introductions

	2.2. Charter

	2.3. Assignments

1. Work Group Meeting Attendees

The following people attended the work group meeting:

• Ron Bowmaster (NE)
• Hugh Collins (LA)
• Chris Dixon (NASIRE)
• Owen Greenspan (SEARCH)
• Amir Holmes (SEARCH)
• Andy Keiser (PA)
• Murray Laatch (Sybase)
• Win Lyday (OJP/USDOJ)
• Ed Papps (NCSC)
• Cathy Plummer (NM)
• Dave Roberts (SEARCH)
• Ron Titus (NV)
• Dave Usery (SEARCH)
• Todd Vincent (GAState)
• Larry Webster (SEARCH)

2. Work Group Meeting Minutes

2.1 Welcome and Introductions

The meeting of the work group of legal XML for integrated justice commenced at 8:30 a.m. on June 29, 2000. Dave Roberts stated that he had been asked to serve as chair. This role may be performed by Larry Webster in the future. Hugh Collins was asked to serve as co-chair and agreed to do so.

This face-to-face meeting was organized to address several questions and issues of the Integrated Justice Work Group: 1) How does this work group relate to other work groups within Legal XML and external to it? What dialogue should be initiated with the other groups? 2) Who should approve or adopt the standards that will be developed? 3) What methodology should be used to create XML standards for integrated justice (i.e., standards for the exchange of information among a variety of agencies with the justice environment and related fields, rather than just for courts, which are being addressed by the court filing and appellate filing work groups)? 4) How will the Integrated Justice Work Group conduct business, i.e., will the group use a threaded discussion forum or a listserv? Are future face-to-face meetings necessary? How should discussion be fostered and directed? 5) The work group also should specify next steps and develop a plan to accomplish its objectives.

2.2 Charter

The draft charter is available on the web site. Larry Webster indicated that he will be responsible for changes to the charter, based on discussions during the meeting, and posting revisions to the Legal XML web site; Todd will set up FTP access for Larry. The group first discussed the general approach outlined the charter, a focus on documents that are routinely exchanged in integrated justice systems. Participants endorsed the overall approach of focusing on the documents that are exchanged in justice information processing, building at least initially on the OJP/BJA-funded Data Exchange Project being conducted by SEARCH.  Sample documents are listed in the draft charter and the work group will identify those for which DTDs will be created in the near future. A fundamental assumption underlying the work of the Integrated Justice Work Group is that there is significant commonality in information exchange throughout the justice enterprise. Four domains of information exchange have been identified and are incorporated into the data exchange research being conducted by SEARCH: a) the events triggering the exchange, b) the agencies involved in the exchange, c) the information exchanged (documents, data sets, and data elements), and d) the exchange conditions. Search staff is currently working on adult felony and misdemeanors processes and expects to continue with juvenile case processing in the future. The Background Report for the Data Exchange Project can be found on the SEARCH web site at http://www.search.org.

Murray noted that an element of information exchange is missing from the charter, the acknowledgment, which is an electronic receipt to the sending agency indicating that the transmission was received and processed satisfactorily.

Todd stated that there is an outer envelope and two inner envelopes in the court filing standards initiative. Some of these wrappings may not be necessary for integrated justice transactions. Events and documents are different and should be treated differently. It is easier to concentrate on the documents. Conditions of data exchange will vary with local practice.

Ron wanted to focus on governance and relationships. The court group is concerned with court filings. This group is involved with integrated justice and can step on the toes of many groups working on criminal justice data exchange. The arrest document has been defined for thirty years and there are appropriate parties to do it. This group should be concerned with the exchange component. Somebody should be involved with the oversight.

Todd suggested that Dave Roberts and SEARCH be involved since they know some of the players. This group can serve as a catalyst. We should be defining DTDs (document type definitions) and elements. If we put them out there, folks will be likely to use them.

Dave Roberts observed that several significant stakeholder groups and organizations are critical to the successful development of XML standards for integrated justice and representatives of each should be formally invited to participate.  The group agreed and identified a variety of organizations that should be contacted about participating with the integrated justice work group, including:

• APB – CJIS /Advisory Policy Board;
• Federal Bureau of Investigation;
• JNET (Pennsylvania), and perhaps other state integrated CJIS efforts;
• International Association of Chiefs of Police;
• National Sheriff's Association;
• American Probation and Parole Association;
• National District Attorneys Association;
• National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System;
• State and Local Bar Associations;
• Interstate Identification Index Compact Council;
• American Corrections Association / Corrections Technology Association;
• National Association of State Information Resource Executives;
• National Center for State Courts;
• Conference of State Court Administrators;
• National Association for Court Management;
• NIJ-NCLETC;
• American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;
• Welfare Agencies;
• Juvenile Justice Agencies;
• American Judges Association;
• NACRAC
• Other Clerk Associations;
• American Bar Association;
• Global Criminal Justice Information Network;
• Drug Enforcement Administration;
• National Criminal Justice Association;
• IIR;
• NCRLE; and
• SEARCH.

Ed observed that a standard is never finished; it will continually be revised. Todd proposed that the initiative must be both technical and political. All parties involved must be invited to the table, but folks need to see something to actually become involved (first level skeleton). Buy-in involves hashing it out; it is a learning process. Ed suggested that XML eliminates technical barriers that existed before. Larry noted that the information that is used has not changed significantly in thirty years, while the technology has migrated through several generations. Criminal justice does not have a single focal point. Win asked whether this initiative is limited to criminal history records. In response, the group agreed that the universe is all justice activities, including civil processes and transmissions to auxiliary agencies.

Amir expressed concern about expanding the scope to involve all these group. Ron suggested that we might have some key groups and then have successes to share with other groups. Todd Vincent agreed, saying that anyone who is interested should be incorporated into the group.

The charter will be revised to incorporate the ideas of the work group.

Todd liked the charter. Cathy questioned the use of the term "criminal." Ed suggested removing all references to “criminal.” Todd suggested that priorities for action still should be agreed upon. Cathy thinks that some funds may be available through juvenile justice. Owen suggested that the introduction should encompass exchanges within a single agency (paragraph starting with “Integration does not mean”) -- therefore delete “between agencies” in #3. Murray noted that XML involves overhead in packet transmission and no inference should be given that it should be used within agencies. Andy suggested that “between systems” might be an alternative to “between agencies”. Murray suggested that the paragraph starting “Justice agencies throughout the nation” should add “and internationally”. Andy thought there is a difference between an agency that is publishing and those that are subscribing. Change the paragraph starting “There are at least four” to include this idea. Dave Roberts proposed including the definitions of query, push, pull, publish, and subscribe. Murray, agreed, noting that architectural options exist for using XML. Larry observed that the incremental model of the criminal justice system involves an audit trail involving additional transactions. Murray said that the audit trail supports his idea of an acknowledgement, but this group only is focusing on the document. Ron reiterated that the charge of this group is document-based and then focus on the data sets involved in the transactions. This group should not replicate work already being done elsewhere.

Todd suggested that the documents should be collected, analyzed, and the data elements identified. Larry and Dave Roberts noted that SEARCH is presently conducting this research using several states (Colorado, Minnesota, and Kansas), with others also expected  Dave Usery discussed the nature of the data exchange research effort that he and Amir are conducting and noted that while data collection has proceeded well, the documents, data sets, and data elements are still being analyzed. Todd and Murray asked that the materials be made available immediately. Andy proposed that the Pennsylvania assumption that the originator of the data defines the standard be adopted by this group. Ron suggested that this group should have some oversight or at least interface with other Legal XML groups, since there is the potential of inconsistent or conflicting work if the efforts are not closely coordinated. Todd noted that no group should slow any other group down. If there is conflict or confusion, then there should be review. Dave Roberts suggested that the function might be better received as “coordination” rather than “review,” as discussed in section 7. Owen asked if the other groups discussed what “origination” is. Murray noted that an order of protection originates with the court, but the FBI sets requirements for transmission and storage. Ron proposed that the originator includes not only the event but also the value added. Todd disagreed, noting that too much of the application would be included. Andy said that documents should not be confused with a single jurisdiction or agency since a document may involve information from several sources. Courts will define elements; each jurisdiction can select which ones they will use.

Todd explained that there is a difference between logical structures and data, but they may be related. Types of motions should be contained in “motions” and the variety of orders should be included in “orders.” Data dictionaries can be parameter structures. Win suggested that the list of documents not be included because of the obvious absence of a variety of documents, thus affecting the credibility of the charter. Nebraska, Oregon and Illinois, at a minimum, have descriptions of documents and the concomitant data elements. Ed asked if Marty or Rich should be involved in this group to insure coordination. Todd agreed that a technical person needs to be the keeper of the document, even though there may be some issues regarding flexibility. Larry proposed listing only the areas on which the group will initially focus. Todd noted that the documents are overlapping on the horizontal level, except the fingerprint card. Andy said that Pennsylvania only found fifty data elements. Owen agreed that the list should only include the ones on which the group will originally concentrate. Ron suggested asking the public to add to the list. Win suggested that, if the list is to be included, it should be part of an appendix (which could grow). Andy discussed the pros and cons of categorizing by agency or phases (investigative, pretrial, trial, post-trial and sentencing). Todd explained that he is seeing a greater emphasis on events and sequencing than he formerly had expected. Ron suggested we should keep the concept of the documents, sorted by phase, but remove it from the charter. There was general consensus that the charter should suggest general justice processes by listing categories with a few example documents, with additional documents identified in an expanding appendix.

The section on requirements (3.1) is fine, as is the section on constraints (3.2), with the elimination of the word “criminal.” On deliverables (4), there was a general discussion suggesting an initial focus on the criminal history record, since there is already some work that has been completed in this area by SEARCH and by the FBI. Deliverables will be posted on the Legal XML site, as well as the SEARCH web site and others, including OJP/USDOJ. The web site also will include links to states and nations that contain related information.

Todd suggested that calls for participation in the Integrated Justice Work Group be made to the broader legal and observer lists, and that the call should occur within the next week. Todd asked that someone be specified to play the technical role that Marty has played for the court filing work group. Murray, having been asked, said that he did not think it appropriate role for a vendor; however, if no one else volunteers, he would do it as an individual, not as a representative of his company.

Andy raised the question of funding. Todd said that Legal XML is currently functioning with volunteer time, money, and other resources. Some funds come from registration at conferences. SEARCH has funds from USDOJ for technical assistance and for the data exchange project, which are strongly parallel with this effort, and it is possible that some limited and well-defined support can be provided to this effort from these two BJA-funded initiatives, but that this must be reviewed and approved with appropriate project managers at the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Andy predicted that jurisdictions will need technical assistance in working with XML. Todd observed that most groups need to meet three or four times a year on a face-to-face basis, working with mailing lists or telephone conferences between meeting dates. Participants discussed a variety of on-line and telephone meeting options, including the use of Yahoo Chat. Nevertheless, there was a consensus that periodic (and perhaps regularly scheduled) face-to-face meetings will be required given the significance and complexity of this overall effort.

Ron asked whether this group can establish a plan with target deadlines. Murray responded that deadlines must relate to available resources. Ed noted that if there is no demonstrable progress, folks will quickly lose interest. The Court Filing Work Group will meet in Santa Fe in October, IACP will meet in October in San Diego, COSCA and NACM will meet in August in Atlanta. The work group agreed that an August meeting seems well-timed, with a possible follow-up meeting in October. The meeting should be coordinated with existing conferences. The meeting also should include local participants. Local representation is difficult to get because of limited travel funds. This might be suggested to NGA as a topic for the regional meetings announcing the strategic planning for integrated justice.

One immediate deliverable is to contact other relevant agencies and organizations, as well as other XML work groups, and notify them of this initiative. This will include a call for participants, queries regarding what research agencies, organizations, and jurisdictions have already completed and DTDs they have developed, and a complete work plan for the Integrated Justice Work Group. Another early deliverable should be the development and posting of the model criminal history record DTD. The model criminal history record has already been completed and endorsed by several significant stakeholder organizations and work has begun on developing XML specifications for the record, both by SEARCH and the FBI. Owen will send Murray electronic copies of some of the work already in process. In addition, Pennsylvania has well-formed XML and may have DTDs and Andy will transmit what is currently available. California also is working heavily with XML. Larry will serve as a single point for bringing everything together; he will also be the keeper of the work plan.

The participants suggested that the next face-to-face meeting should include a technical break-out session for the designers and that this group should report back to the larger group. The next meeting also will include a summary of XML, DTDs and other related initiatives around the country using this technology. Andy suggested that these topics should be included as part of a national integration conference; Dave Roberts noted that SEARCH is already planning such a conference for Fall 2001 with BJA, OJP, and USDOJ. Andy noted that policy makers should be educated that XML will allow transfer of information, regardless of format, and the advantages are that it is web-based and developers are building tools now. With these standards, any agency can subscribe to any information to which they are allowed access. There was consensus that general introductory materials about XML and the justice system should be pulled together for policy-makers and other decision-makers and users; Todd indicated that much of this material already exists and he will coordinate with Larry to ensure that we identify appropriate material, rather than attempt drafting new documents.

The next face-to-face meeting will be held in conjunction with the NACM Symposium in Atlanta and the participants identified either August 12 or August 18 as likely dates, subject to discussion with the NACM conference organizers. The deliverables will include (1) the call for participation, (2a) the call for and collection of DTDs currently available, (2b) the call for and collection of current data standards and models, (3) the posting of materials on the web (including the criminal history record in XML format), (4) the final charter (to be approved at the August meeting), (5) a marketing plan and a separate draft work plan (including a time line, a schedule of meetings and a plan for version 1 DTDs), and (6) a draft white paper (a explanatory piece regarding XML). The XML white paper will be used as a marketing document. The August agenda also will consider inter-group communications and will include an educational session on XML basics, DTDs, etc.

Andy suggested that vendors should be included in the call for participation, as well as local courts and law enforcement.

The participants discussed various technologies that can be used to initiate and continue dialogue among work group members and others, and concern was voiced over the volume of e-mail that often accompanies the use of listservs.  A suggestion was made to use threaded discussion forums, since many of the current listservs are producing an overwhelming volume of daily e-mail traffic. Todd observed that the listserv moderator has a significant role to play in managing the listserv and that affirmative management of the listserv can effectively reduce the the volume of e-mail traffic. Murray asserted that the key is an accurate and adequate specification of subject matter. Todd said that the XML database has the capability of performing polls; this tool could be set up for use by chairs. Additional mailing lists cost about $100 apiece if sub-lists are required. A danger exists in separating groups when the topic is integration. The digest feature is sometimes difficult to use. Ultimately, the burden for listserv use is with the chair. It was agreed that the work group will use the listserv and make every effort to manage it effectively to ensure that users are not inundated with daily e-mail.

Change teleconferences (8.3) to say that the group will use teleconferences as needed. A face-to-face meeting (8.4) schedule will be identified in the work plan and will occur as needed.

2.3 Assignments

• Hugh, Ron and Andy – marketing plan
• Larry – charter and work plan
• Hugh and Dave Roberts – call for participation
• Larry – call for DTDs, standards, and models
• Todd – white paper
• Win – minutes

Murray said the group wishes to thank SEARCH for organizing the meeting. Everyone concurred. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Sponsored by FindLaw and Georgia State University Electronic Court Filing Project.  Copyright © 1999-2001 LegalXML, Inc. All Rights Reserved. General Public Licenses and Disclaimers apply as specified in Legal XML Operating Rules